Joliet smoking conviction reversed by higher court
December 9, 2009
By STEWART WARREN swarren@scn1.com
JOLIET -- Late last year, a Will County jury found a Joliet woman guilty of violating the state's smoking ban.
Now a higher court has reversed that decision.
Daniel O'Day, the Peoria lawyer who has represented several local residents and others around the state who have been charged with violating the 2008 law, heard the news Tuesday morning. And he certainly was pleased.
"For a year and a half or more, smokers in Illinois were terrorized by threats of arrest for misdemeanors or petty offenses," O'Day said Tuesday afternoon. "That turned out to be bogus, according to the Illinois Appellate Court."
His client is Kathleen Kane, 56, of 702 Ingalls Ave., Joliet.
One day in March 2008, she was at Woody's, 1008 W. Washington St., Joliet. At the time, Kane worked tending bar there, but she wasn't on the clock when the arrest happened, O'Day said. A Joliet police officer and a representative from the Will County Health Department stopped at the bar and ticketed Kane and others for smoking inside the building, O'Day said.
After Kane was convicted, O'Day filed an appeal.
The higher court ruled Monday that Kane's case should have been handled administratively, not as a criminal matter in the court system.
The fine and court costs totaling $231 will be refunded, O'Day said.
With local co-counsel Ted Hammel, the Peoria lawyer has several similar cases pending in Will County. They'll be in court Dec. 16, he said.
"Now they will have to be dismissed," O'Day predicted.
Read

---

Smoking ban debate still hot
 
February 19, 2007
Jim Hook

The deadline was three months away.

Plenty of time for Hickory Hills Ald. Tom McAvoy (3rd) to get local businesses to weigh in on a proposed Cook County smoking ban scheduled to take effect March 15.

"This is something that will affect their livelihoods," McAvoy said. "They are the ones whose opinions we need to hear."

So the self-anointed "aldermaniac" drew up a survey, mailed it to the city's 278 businesses and asked them for input.

McAvoy spent $341.77 for postage and copying, and for several three-ring binders.

"I got at a great deal at Office Depot," he said. "I've got a discount card there."

A 12-year-old ward resident earned a couple of community service hours stuffing surveys into envelopes.

Municipalities across the Southland are scrambling to come up with ordinances that balance the public's health with the business community's financial welfare.

Tinley Park, Orland Park and Oak Forest were among the first towns to impose a smoking ban when they adopted similar ordinances on Jan. 2.

Two weeks later, bowing to pressure from their business communities, they held simultaneous meetings during which they lifted the ban. In Tinley Park's case, elected officials said they wanted to research the effects of smoking bans. The village agreed to spend $10,000 for consultants to do the research.

But that figure soon ballooned to about $25,000.

And that surprised officials in Hickory Hills and other towns.

"Tinley Park is a great town and Mayor (Ed) Zabrocki is doing a good job over there," McAvoy said. "But $25,000 is a lot of money.

While Zabrocki couldn't be reached Friday, Tinley Park hopes the study they get will answer questions such as whether smoking bans negatively affect business and whether they positively affect public health.

Working with Tinley Park village staff, the New York consulting firm is examining smoking bans in other communities and states and reviewing public health literature. The company also will conduct "a statistical analysis to quantify the impact of smoking bans on revenues and restaurants in communities similar to Tinley Park," Trustee Brian Maher said last week.

Trustee Dave Seaman, a proponent of the smoking ban, said he hopes Tinley Park's study will be more comprehensive than McAvoy's.

"If you're going to go through this exercise, you have to do it the right way," Seaman said. "If you tell someone your decision could put them out of business, then $25,000 doesn't sound like that much money."

In the Hickory Hills survey, 30 percent of the businesses responded. And the results weren't all that surprising.

Doctors, dentists and others with health-related businesses said smoking should be banned "in all public places throughout the city."

"Please ban smoking in all public places," said one bank official who responded to the survey.

Bars, restaurants and other businesses that sell alcohol said they rely on smokers. Restricting smoking would be tantamount to financial suicide, they said.

"I'm against the smoking ban," said one bar owner. "There's no need for it. Leave society alone.

"Worry about the rapists, murderers and goofy people."

But one ban opponent surprised McAvoy.

Lack and Sons funeral directors Jim and Ron Lack told McAvoy they should have the option to allow smoking at their business.

"If our families don't want smoking allowed, we remove ashtrays," they said. "But if they do want to smoke, we want to be able to provide them that option in a private area.

"If we can't provide this for them, they may go to a funeral home in a town with a less restrictive ordinance," they said. "This could have a serious impact on us and the Hickory Hills sales tax."

Hickory Hills aldermen are expected to discuss the issue at the Feb. 28 city council meeting and vote March 8.

McAvoy expects the council will allow businesses to decide for themselves whether to ban smoking.

Unless municipalities enact their own smoking ordinances by March 15, they'll have to live under the terms of the Cook County Clean Indoor Air Act.

The ordinance is fairly restrictive, banning smoking in all public places.
Read

Kick the habit to save some cash?

January 26, 2006
Charles B. Pelkie

JOLIET - Bar and restaurant owners breathed a sigh of relief after a proposal for a cigarette smoking ban appeared to wheeze its dying breath this week.

But the smoking debate continues to gasp for air.

Councilman Tim Brophy proposed a ban in December after the Chicago City Council pushed through controversial restrictions on public smoking. But he declined to call for a draft ordinance Monday night after local tavern and casino owners offered gloom-and-doom predictions about customers fleeing Joliet for competitors in neighboring towns.

The councilman, however, said he has received many calls and e-mails since Monday's joint session of the land use and public safety committee meetings urging him to continue his effort to reduce the harmful effects of secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants. He plans to push forward, but he is switching tactics. 

Brophy has asked the city's attorney to begin researching the legality of offering financial incentives for bar and restaurant owners to either go smoke-free or install state-of-the-art air filtration systems to protect workers and customers.

Those incentives could include reductions in the cost of city liquor licenses or other tax rebates. Liquor licenses in Joliet range from $750 to $1,700 annually. "We've got to get the bars and restaurants to see that this can work and that there is a positive economic effect," Brophy said.

Councilwoman Jan Quillman, who is a nurse at Silver Cross Hospital and a member of the public safety committee, agreed that financial incentives might be preferable to a ban. "This is not totally out of our thoughts," she said. "We'll want to talk about incentives."

Brophy and Quillman agreed that a smoking ban could negatively affect local businesses. "We have to take a look at this from an economic perspective," Quillman said. "We're not Chicago."

After listening to opponents, Brophy said Joliet could not ban smoking in bars and restaurants unless surrounding communities did the same. In the case of Joliet's two casinos, bans would have to be adopted in other gaming towns, including Aurora, Elgin and Hammond, Ind.

Bans 'hurt businesses'

Incentives might be more palatable for restaurant and bar owners.

"From a business community standpoint, we're much more open to an incentive-based system than a draconian ordinance that would hurt businesses," said Steve Riedl, executive director of the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association.

Riedl noted that many establishments already have installed high-tech filtration systems that reduce the impacts of secondhand smoke. And he decried what he described as the all-or-nothing approach by public health "zealots" who want bars and restaurants to be completely smoke-free.

A good start

Cindy Jackson, who manages the Will County Health Department's tobacco control and prevention program, agreed that an incentive program might be a good start.

"Anything that will get a restaurant to go smoke-free is good," she said. "It's good for the workers and the patrons."

But she insisted that while filtration systems may reduce smoke, they do not eliminate the harmful chemicals and toxins that remain in the air. She pointed to a list of disclaimers by filtration system retailers and manufacturers, many of which state that they do not provide complete protection against the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. The list was compiled by the advocacy group Americans for Non-Smokers' Rights.

Jackson said the health department is passing petitions and conducting an educational campaign with the goal of achieving a 100 percent ban on public smoking.

Elected officials have struggled with financial incentives that will appeal to business owners. In Washington, D.C., for example, elected officials considered giving a 25 percent sales tax rebate to bars that went smoke-free, but only after quadrupling business license fees. The city council eventually bailed on the initiative and in December passed a smoking ban.

Read